DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehner, U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0109510, in view of Blanning, U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0121043, Sudo, U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0295568, and in further view of Jones et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0333027. As to Claim 1, Boehner teaches a computerized method for determining an operability status of a ball throwing machine (101) comprising obtaining data from an operational sensor (1305) collected during operation of the machine, paragraphs 0023 and 0039. The sensor may be disposed on the ball throwing machine (on motor), paragraph 0035. The ball launching machine may comprise one or more launch wheels (13) configured to launch a ball by imparting motion thereto, paragraphs 0023 and 0024. The launch wheels may be coupled to a frame (26M), paragraph 0023, and a control circuit (1300) may be configured to control the launch wheels, paragraph 0037. The operability status of the machine may be determined from data collected by an operational sensor, paragraph 0039. Boehner teaches that the machine may provide a ball launching sequence, paragraph 0038, noting a set time delay between ball launches, but Boehner is silent as to a series of ball-launch sequences in accordance with a training program. Blanning teaches a ball throwing machine (10) configured to perform a series of ball-launch sequences resulting in launching a series of balls in accordance with a training program, paragraphs 0016 and 0023, noting a selected drill comprising a selected series of tennis strokes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Boehner with the performance of a series of ball-launch sequences in accordance with a training program, as taught by Blanning, to provide Boehner with capability of executing a series of ball-launch sequences to yield the predictable result of delivering practice shots in accordance with a training program. Boehner, as modified, is silent as to parsing collected data into segments. Sudo teaches testing a machine by analyzing sensor data (sound data), paragraph 0011. Sudo teaches parsing collected data into segments (frequency bands by time unit) based on variability of collected data, paragraph 0060, noting calculating correlation coefficients to detect abnormality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to parse collected data into segments based on variability, as taught by Sudo, to provide Boehner, as modified, with collected data representing sounds during a time period of operation, for comparison, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of detecting an abnormality. Boehner, as modified, teaches comparing segments of collected data by time unit to detect whether operation of a machine is consistent with expected performance, but Boehner, as modified, does not disclose comparing segments of collected data to signatures of known actions. Jones teaches that sensor data collected in a machine may be stored in memory as correlation data and used in comparison with collected sensor data to determine satisfaction with variability being consistent with expected variability, paragraph 0007, noting satisfaction with the comparison. Data signatures of known actions (reference data) may comprise data collected by an operational sensor (audio microphone) under known operating conditions in a machine, paragraph 0078. A timestamp may be associated with each known action, paragraphs 0076 and 0084, noting reference data reformatted for correlation. It follows that data timestamps are matched to align normal operating events based on signatures of known actions stored for comparison with detected events comprising segments of collected data, for analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Boehner, as modified, with reference data collected by operational sensors under known operating conditions producing correlation data (reference) parsed in segments and saved in memory, as signatures of known actions for comparing with time based segments of collected event data to detect consistency with expected machine operation, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of detecting whether the ball throwing machine is operating consistently with the set of stored data signatures. The examiner finds that time based data segments would necessarily correlate with actions based on the training program given that the signatures of known actions are collected as sound data during normal operation of the machine, see Jones paragraph 0007. As to Claims 2, 9, and 16, Boehner teaches a motor (11) of the machine spinning a launch wheel at a spin rate configured to impart motion to a first ball at a specified speed, paragraphs 0028 and 0024. Boehner, as modified, teaches that a ball launch sequence may be provided, as discussed above. The examiner finds that the launch of a ball launch sequence may be considered to be a first ball of a launch sequence. As to Claims 3, 10, and 17, Boehner teaches that an operational sensor (1305) may include a current sensor configured to detect current drawn by a first launch wheel, paragraph 0039, noting resistance of motor monitored by sensor. As to Claims 4, 11, and 18, Boehner teaches that collected sensor data may be analyzed by a processor (1325) to detect a problem, paragraph 0039. Boehner, as modified, does not teach that data may be analyzed to detect whether variability in the data is consistent with expected variability. Jones teaches that sensor data collected in a machine may be stored in memory as correlation data and used in comparison with collected sensor data to determine satisfaction with variability being consistent with expected variability, paragraph 0007, noting satisfaction with the comparison. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the operability status of a machine by analyzing collected data to determine whether variability is consistent with expected variability based on operation of the machine, as taught by Jones, to provide Boehner, as modified, with determining operability status of the ball throwing machine by analyzing collected data to detect whether variability in the collected data is consistent with expected variability, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of determining whether the ball throwing machine is in operable status. As to Claims 7, 14, and 20, Jones teaches generating an alert (transceiver accessing remote computer system) indicating that the machine is operating abnormally and causing a display of the alert on a display of a network device (remote computer system), paragraph 0007, noting indicating of maintenance issue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Boehner, as modified, with an alert to a network device indicating abnormal operation, as taught by Jones, to provide Boehner, as modified, with notice of an issue to yield the predictable result of making an operator aware of abnormal operation when acting remotely. As to Claim 8, Boehner, as modified by Blanning, Sudo, and Jones is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Boehner teaches a processor (1325) , paragraph 0039. Boehner does not specify a non-transitory computer readable medium. Blanning teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (24 and hidden button) having instructions stored thereon to cause the processor to perform the claimed functions, paragraphs 0016 and 0018, noting that the memory stick (24) includes instructions for executing a training program by launching a sequence of balls and the internal memory (hidden button) initiates a diagnostic program for the machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before he effective filing date to provide Boehner, as modified, with a non-transitory computer readable memory configured as claimed and as taught by Blanning, to provide Boehner, as modified, with a known substitute component for storing the required instructions. As to Claim 15, Boehner, as modified by Blanning, Sudo, and Jones, is applied as in Claims 1 and 8, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains the position that the failure of Jones to teach time-based ordering consistent with a training program does not overcome a rejection based on a combination of the teaching of Jones with a primary reference and secondary references. Boehner teaches a ball throwing machine equipped with electronics which include sensors configured to provide a processor with data associated with the operation of the motors. The data is analyzed by the processor to determine whether a problem is present. It is inherent that some type of comparison is performed by the processor in order to distinguish normal sensor data from data indicating a problem. Sudo teaches that sensor data collected from a machine may be parsed into segments by time and by frequency, to facilitate a comparison between data segments to detect and abnormality. The teaching of Boehner, together with that of Sudo and Blanning, would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the data comparison of Boehner may be facilitated by parsing the data into segments for analysis to effectively monitor the action of a ball throwing machine performing a training program. Jone teaches that the operation of a machine may be monitored by sensors delivering data to a processor which compares collected test data with stored data comprising reference sound data representing normal operations of the machine. It would have been obvious to modify Boehner to conduct the data comparison using reference data collected from the machine operating normally and stored in memory. The teaching of Sudo would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to match a segment of collected data with a segment of stored data associated with the same time period during phases of the training program in order to obtain a meaningful comparison.
In response to applicant’s argument that Jones does not disclose an ordered sequence, because the type of machine being monitored does not have a sequence of distinct machine actions, the examiner maintains the position that Jones is cited for the disclosure of using stored reference data collected during normal operation of the machine and stored for comparison with data collected for performing analysis. It is inherent that Jones would necessarily include matching of collected data with stored data to align data streams to coordinate cycles of appliances such as dishwashers and laundry machines, which operate differently during various cycles, in order to compare appropriate portions of the data streams.
In response to applicant’s argument that Jones does not teach signatures of known actions comprising the training program, the examiner maintains the position that Jones teaches signatures of known actions in the form of stored reference data collected during normal operation of a machine. Jones is cited in combination with the teaching of a primary reference and with other secondary references to support a finding of obviousness regarding the use of stored data signatures of known actions for comparison with collected test data to monitor operational status of a machine conducting actions of a training program.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains the position that the failure of Jones to detail the process of aligning current collected sound data with reference sound data representing normal operation by matching time stamps of the two data sets to align the various cycles of machines such as dishwashers and laundry machines does not overcome a rejection based on the combination of the teaching of Jones with a primary reference and secondary references. The examiner maintains the position as set forth above describing the teaching of each cited reference.
In response to applicant’s argument that Sudo teaches away from using stored reference data as a basis for comparison, the examiner maintains the position that Sudo presents an alternative to stored reference data for comparison but does not indicate that the use of stored reference data is unworkable. The correlation of data described by Sudo is considered as an alternative substitute. Sudo is cited for the teaching of the necessity for parsing data into segments for analysis. The examiner does not agree that the design objective is to avoid the use of stored reference data. Sudo teaches and alternative substitute method for analyzing data collected from a machine during operation.
In response to applicant’s argument that Sudo does not teach segmentation based on variability the examiner maintains the position that, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the segmentation based on frequency bands represents a variation between the segmented portions of data.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the inventive method comprises a process of evaluating the operation of a machine to determine whether operation is proceeding in normal fashion. The invention relates particularly to a ball throwing machine. The Boehner and Blanning references describe ball throwing machines and Boehner teaches monitoring the machine for abnormal operation. The examiner maintains the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the teaching of Sudo and Jones regarding monitoring a machine to determine abnormal operation and to consider modifications incorporating the teaching to improve the process of monitoring the operation of the ball throwing machine. The cited references teach the use of sensors collecting data from the machine during operation and delivering collected data to a processor for analysis.
In response to applicant's argument that Sudo and Jones are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sudo and Jones teach the use of sensors in a machine for collecting data to be analyzed by a processor, in order to discover abnormal operating conditions. Applicant’s claims are directed to the features of a ball throwing machine which collect data for analysis by a process to determine abnormal operation rather than to the ball throwing features. The prior art references teach the monitoring of a machine operation and are pertinent to the problem addressed by the invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 28 July 2026
Prosecution Insights